Bombay High Court
Vinod S/O Harichand Rohidas And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 12 July, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 APL.396.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 396 OF 2016.
1] Vinod s/o Harichand Rohidas,
aged about 28 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Qtr. No. 653, Post - Valni,
P.S. Khaperkheda, Khaperkheda,
Tah. Saoner, Dist. Nagpur,
2] Vishwakarma Ram s/o Shivnath
Ram, aged about 45 years,
Occupation - Agriculture,
R/o Badhariya, Dist. Mahu, P.S.
Kalipizda, State - Uttar Pradesh, and
3] Smt. Rajnibai w/o Harichand Rohidas,
aged about 58 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Qtr. No. 653, Post - Valni,
P.S. Khaperkheda, Khaperkheda,
Tah. Saoner, Dist. Nagpur,
4] Ms. Pinky d/o Jitendra Prasad,
aged about 21 years, Occupation :
Household, R/o Gram Rampur,
Post Munderwar, Tah. & Dist. Basti,
State - Uttar Pradesh,
At present Qtr. No. 22/3, Gondegaon
Khadan Colony, Tah. Parseoni,
Dist. Nagpur. .... APPLICANTS.
....Versus....
1] The State of Maharashtra, through
its Police Station Officer, Kanhan
Police Station, Kanhan. ..... NON-APPLICANT
Mr. Abdul Bashir, Advocate for applicants,
Mrs. G.K. Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant.
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:13 :::
2 APL.396.16.odt
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : JULY 12, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.R. GAVAI, J.)
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned
Counsel for the parties finally by consent.
2]
The applicants have jointly approached this Court for
quashing and setting aside the First Information Report lodged by the
applicant No.4 and the consequential proceedings for the offence
punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961.
3] FIR came to be lodged by applicant no.4 alleging therein
that the marriage was solemnized between her and the applicant no.1
and with regard to the said marriage, the applicant no.1 and his other
relatives, who are applicant nos. 2 & 3, demanded dowry.
4] However, it appears that during the pendency of the
proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled between the
parties. The parties have resolved to give an end to the criminal
proceedings between them.
3 APL.396.16.odt
5] We find that both the applicant No.1 and the applicant
No.4 are of young age. We are of the view that pendency of these
proceedings would act as a hindrance in leading their life
independently. We, therefore, find that when the applicant No.1 and
the applicant No.4 have themselves decided to give an end to the
criminal proceedings, no purpose would be served in keeping the
criminal proceedings pending.
6]
The applicant No.1 and the applicant No.4 are personally
present in the Court and they reiterate about the settlement. Both the
applicants have been identified by the learned Counsel for the
applicants.
7] In that view of the matter, the Criminal Application stands
allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (ii).
JUDGE. J
UDGE.
J.
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order".
Uploaded by : Ki. Jeswani, Uploaded on : 14.7.2016.
